Memphis Trial Attorneys – Page 3 – Memphis Business Litigation, Probate Litigation, Noncompete Agreement Lawsuit and More.

May 17, 2016

Congress Members Join Demand To Recall Essure Birth Control Device

Mounting number of Essure lawsuit claims and reports citing thousands of injury and death incidents linked to the birth control device have led to increasing demand for its market withdrawal. In a show of support, the members of the Congress have written to the FDA to consider revoking the approval given to Essure birth control. MedWatch reports cite over 5,000 Essure injuries, including abdominal pain, menstrual disorders, internal organ injuries, infection, bleeding, fallopian tube perforation and death. In 2012, there were about 100 Essure injury complaints. Two years later, the complaints grew 20 fold to reach 2,259. More than 23,000 “women who had the Essure procedure done, and are suffering or have suffered from side effects which may be attributed to Essure” are members of a Facebook group called Essure Problems.

Congress To Facilitate Essure Birth Control Recall

Amid hundreds of potential Essure lawsuit claims being evaluated by Essure attorneys nationwide, Penn State Representative Mike Fitzpatrick has announced his intention of introducing a bill in the Congress to facilitate recall of the transvaginal contraceptive from the US market. The bipartisan bill includes provisions seeking “revocation of the pre-market approval given by FDA to Essure’s original developer, Conceptus, in 2002.” This will force Bayer to withdraw Essure.

The proposed bill is supported by Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a vocal critic of the contraceptive device and at the forefront of demand to recall Essure transvaginal device. She wrote to the FDA in October 2015 citing “a citizen petition filed on behalf of hundreds of women injured by Essure” urged “the FDA to take immediate action and remove the device from the market.”

DeLauro also asked the agency a number of pointed questions about how the hearing was conducted, seeking information on why a panel of women who had actually participated in the Essure clinical trials were not allowed to report to the panel. Had they been allowed, according to DeLauro, their public testimony would have indicated that Essure’s sponsors changed patient ages and information on the Essure complications they suffered when they submitted the data to the FDA for approval.

DeLauro also noted that independent experts were not given sufficient time, and that the FDA has only posted 11 out of more than three thousand comments submitted to the docket of the citizen’s petition calling for an Essure recall.

“Essure’s benefits do not outweigh its risks, and it should be withdrawn from the market,” DeLauro said. “If well-designed studies in the future indicate that the benefits outweigh the risks compared to alternative permanent or long-term contraception, the FDA can consider approving Essure at that time.”

Her letter came in support of consumer groups calling for withdrawal of the FDA approval to the contraceptive citing increasing number of lawsuits claiming Essure injuries. In 2014, a Congressional hearing on the transvaginal device demanded change to FDA approval process so as to facilitate filing of product liability lawsuit against medical device makers.

FDA Panel Recommends More Safety Research

The FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Advisory Panel, which met on September 24, also recommended more research on Essure safety data. The first such meeting on the contraceptive in 13 years of its approval, it was attended by over two dozens of women subject to Essure side effect injuries. All victims strongly demanded the withdrawal of the product. Their disposition forced the panel members to express concern over inadequate safety data related to the birth control device and question the manufacturer about shortcomings during clinical trials. A FDA report published prior to the panel meet acknowledged the existence of “very little reliable post-marketing data by independent researchers to support whether Essure is working in the real world, as it did in pre-market clinical trials.”

Hundreds of Essure lawsuit claims by women are being evaluated by lawyers across the United States for potential product liability damages. A number of cases have already been filed seeking compensations. Contact our Essure injury attorney or call on 1-800-632-1404 to explore options for filing Essure injury lawsuits and seek compensation and damages for suffering from complications associated with the birth control device.

December 31, 2015

Tennessee Power of Attorney Gift Dispute

A recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case, Conkin as Administrator of Estate of Mattie L. Mettetal v. Ray W. Mettetal, Jr., M.D., discusses a Power of Attorney and his alleged misappropriation of his mother’s funds before her death.

Mattie Mettetal had a devastating stroke, which left her without any ability to speak, write or care for herself in any way. Her son had been granted a Power of Attorney for his mother prior to the stroke, and after the stroke, he went on a spending spree that amounted to tens of thousands of dollars of funds for his personal benefit. On appeal, Dr. Mettetal attempted to argue those funds were used as gifts under Tennessee law.

In Tennessee, a Power of Attorney (POA) owes a duty to the other party “in the utmost good faith.” Estate of Doyle v. Hunt, 60 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998); McFarlin v. McFarlin, 785 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Dr. Mettetal nevertheless attempted to invoke Tenn. Code Ann. 34-6-110, Gifts under power of attorney:

(a) If any power of attorney or other writing:

(1) Authorizes an attorney-in-fact or other agent to do, execute or perform any act that the principal might or could do; or
(2) Evidences the principal’s intent to give the attorney-in-fact or agent full power to handle the principal’s affairs or to deal with the principal’s property;

then the attorney-in-fact or agent shall have the power and authority to make gifts, in any amount, of any of the principal’s property, to any individuals, or to organizations described in §§ 170(c) and 2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §§ 170 and 2522), or corresponding future provisions of the federal tax law, or both, in accordance with the principal’s personal history of making or joining in the making of lifetime gifts. This section shall not in any way limit the right or power of any principal, by express words in the power of attorney or other writing, to authorize, or limit the authority of, any attorney-in-fact or other agent to make gifts of the principal’s property.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-6-110(a) (2015).

Dr. Mettetal was provided for by his mother as he re-gained his medical licensure (after being arrested, convicted, imprisoned, and then released by an appellate court). But once the medical licensure was re-attained there was no need for additional gifting. Likewise, the Court found that once there was a stroke, the continued need to care for the mother and gift monies was unnecessary. Accordingly, the appellate court found that Dr. Mettetal misappropriated funds, converted funds and acted improperly.

November 11, 2015

New Tennessee Conservatorship Opinion Released

A new Opinion has been released by the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning conservatorships. The Court looked at potentially inappropriate charges by a conservator in In re Conservatorship of Horace Duke (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2015). The Court stated:

“The purpose of a conservatorship is to protect the person and the property of the disabled person, the ward.” AmSouth Bank v. Cunningham, 253 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). Conservators are court-appointed fiduciaries “who act as agents of the court and their rights and responsibilities are set forth in the court‘s orders.” Id. Tennessee Code Annotated section 34-3-107(a)(2) states that the court shall “[e]numerate the powers removed from the respondent and those to be vested in the conservator.” Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-104(a), “no person shall undertake the administration of the estate of a minor or person with a disability until the person has been issued letters of guardianship or letters of conservatorship.” The conservator‘s appointment becomes effective “[o]n the entry of an order appointing the fiduciary, the administration of the oath as provided in subsection (b) and the posting of any required bond.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-109(a).

A conservator occupies a fiduciary position of trust of the highest and most sacred character. Although the conservator plays a most important fiduciary role, it is significant to note that “the court itself is ultimately responsible for the disabled persons who come under its care and protection.”

The authority, rights and responsibilities of a conservator are not independent of the court. “Conservators act as the court‘s agent and are under the court‘s supervision.” The courts appointing conservators “retain continuing control over guardians and conservators because the persons who accept these appointments become’quasi-officials’ of the court appointing them.”

AmSouth, 253 S.W.3d at 642 (citations and footnote omitted).

The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court the Duke court for a hearing to occur based on objections filed pre-appeal to a report issued by a Special Master.

November 9, 2015November 9, 2015

Memphis Conservatorship Lawyer Discusses Recent King Case

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently looked at the issue of how much support a spouse may receive when a conservatorship is formed for the other spouse.

The matter of In re Conservatorship of Frank S. King, Jr. involved a request by two children to open a conservatorship for their father, over the objection of a spouse. The appeal involved the wife’s objection to the court awarding her $9,010 per month in maintenance. She had requested $19,250.

The court looked at what a spouse should be entitled to receive for support. The court stated:

A “[c]onservatorship” is a proceeding in which a court removes the decision-making powers and duties, in whole or in part, in a least restrictive manner, from a person with a disability who lacks capacity to make decisions in one or more important areas and places responsibility for one or more of those decisions in a conservator or co-conservators.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-101(4)(B) (2013). “„Conservator‟ or „co-conservators‟ means a person or persons or an entity appointed by the court to exercise the decision-making rights and duties of the person with a disability in one or more areas in which the person lacks capacity as determined and required by the orders of the court.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-101(4)(A) (2013). “„Person with a disability‟ means any person eighteen (18) years of age or older determined by the court to be in need of partial or full supervision, protection, and assistance by reason of mental illness, physical illness or injury, developmental disability, or other mental or physical incapacity.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-101(13) (2013). The threshold question in a conservatorship proceeding is whether the respondent for whom a conservator is sought is a “disabled person” as that term is defined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-101. See In re Conservatorship of Groves, 109 S.W.3d 317, 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Notably, the term “disabled person” was replaced throughout the statute by amendment in 2013 with the term “person with a disability.” See 2013 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 435, § 3.

The purpose of a conservatorship is to protect the person and the property of a person with a disability, the ward of the conservatorship. AmSouth Bank v. Cunningham, 253 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). A conservator occupies a fiduciary position of trust of the highest and most sacred character. Grahl v. Davis, 971 S.W.2d 373, 377 (Tenn. 1998) (citing Meloy v. Nashville Trust Co., 149 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn. 1941)). Although the conservator plays a most important fiduciary role, “the court itself is ultimately responsible for the disabled persons who come under its care and protection.” In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d 84, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (citing Hinds v. Buck, 150 S.W.2d 1071, 1072 (Tenn. 1941); In re Ellis, 822 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)). The conservator has the affirmative duty to act in the best interest of the ward, to protect the assets of the ward, and use them for the benefit of the ward. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-108(a) (stating that a conservator may be discharged if the court determines that the conservator has failed to perform its duties and obligations or failed to act in the best interest of the ward).

The creation of a conservatorship, however, does not relieve the ward or his estate of his financial responsibilities. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-109. Particularly, “[t]he appointment of a conservator for a person with a disability does not automatically terminate the duty of the person with a disability to support such spouse or dependent minor children of the person with a disability.” Id. The statute goes on to state: “[t]he court having jurisdiction over the person with a disability may establish the amount of financial support to which the spouse or dependent minor children are entitled.” Id. (emphasis added).

The court eventually enumerated a list of factors to consider when deciding how much a court should award to a requesting spouse:

The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources.
The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party‟s earnings capacity to a reasonable level;
The duration of the marriage;
The age and mental condition of each party;
The physical condition of each party, including, but not limited to, physical disability or incapacity due to a chronic debilitating disease;
The extent to which it would be undesirable for a party to seek employment outside the home, because such party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage;
The separate assets of each party, both real and personal, tangible and intangible;
The provisions made with regard to the marital property, as defined in § 36-4-121;
The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;
The extent to which each party has made such tangible and intangible contributions to the marriage as monetary and homemaker contributions, and tangible and intangible contributions by a party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party;
The relative fault of the parties, in cases where the court, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to do so; and
Such other factors, including the tax consequences to each party, as are necessary to consider the equities between the parties.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals confirmed that the two that are considered the most important are the disadvantaged spouse‟s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay.

In the King matter, the Court of Appeals found the decision of the trial court was not in error. The trial court looked at 12 months of the spouse’s history of expenditures and removed one-time and excessive outliers. The trial court then averaged together the expenditures to come up with a total amount. The trial court left open the possibility for the spouse to seek special expenditures incurred or needed, such as car maintenance or capital expenditures for the home.

Important, the King case shows that a requesting spouse or a challenging party will need to look at the detailed expense breakdowns of a spouse and argue for or against outlying charges. The ability to seek additional monies, if needed, seems a necessary part of the ruling for a spouse.

Noteworthy is that a spouse should not seek to recover his or her attorney’s fees in the conservatorship process, unless the spouse is a petitioner. As Mrs. King was a respondent, she was left to her own monies to pay her lawyers.

November 8, 2015

Memphis Conservatorship Challenge Attorney

As a Memphis attorney that assists in probate court with will, trust and conservatorship challenges and petition, I wanted to advise on some key basic changes for a Memphis Conservatorship Challenge.

“The purpose of a conservatorship proceeding is to protect the person and property of a [person with a disability].” In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d 84, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). “Conservators are court appointed fiduciaries who act as agents of the court and their rights and responsibilities are set forth in the court’s orders.” In re Lawton, 384 S.W.3d 754, 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting AmSouth Bank v. Cunningham, 253 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)). Their fiduciary position of trust is “of the highest and most sacred character.” Grahl v. Davis, 971 S.W.2d 373, 377 (Tenn. 1998) (citation omitted). “The court itself is ultimately responsible for [persons with a disability] who come under its care and protection[.]” In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d at 90 (citations omitted).

Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-126, a petitioner seeking the appointment of a conservator must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person for whom the conservatorship is sought is disabled and in need of assistance. In re Lawton, 384 S.W.3d at 761 (citations omitted). After the petitioner meets his burden, “the trial court is then charged with responsibility for determining whether the appointment is in the respondent‟s best interest.” Id. (citation omitted). In determining which person should be appointed to serve as conservator, the trial court is guided by the following order of priority:

The person or persons designated in a writing signed by the alleged person with a disability;
The spouse of the person with a disability;
Any child of the person with a disability;
Closest relative or relatives of the person with a disability;
A district public guardian as described by § 34-7-104; and
Other person or persons.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-103 (Supp. 2014).

The designation of a particular person to serve as conservator is left to the discretion of the trial court. In re Conservatorship of Todd, 2010 WL 2350568, at *8 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, in order to appoint a conservator under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-3-103, the trial court must make two determinations. First, the trial court must determine what is in the best interest of the person with a disability, considering all relevant facts. Id. (citing Crumley, 1997 WL 691532, at *3). Second, the trial court must determine “who, under the prioritized list, is the appropriate conservator.” Id. (citing Crumley, 1997 WL 691532, at *3). Moreover, when the trial court finds that a conservatorship is needed, it “has an affirmative duty to ascertain and impose the least restrictive alternatives upon the person with a disability that are consistent with adequate protection of the person with a disability and the property of the person with a disability.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-127 (Supp. 2014).

For help with a Memphis Conservatorship Challenge please call us today at (901) 527-2125.

November 3, 2015

Zoloft Birth Defect Lawsuit: Disclosures Show Pfizer Aware of Side Effects

Reports suggest Pfizer was aware of Zoloft birth defect side effects from an internal assessment, but never accepted it publicly or warned consumers. The management of the antidepressant manufacturer was communicated by one of its drug-safety officials last year over internal findings linking Zoloft to pregnancy-linked newborn deformities. The failure to act on the report and continued denial of any birth defect risk linked to its antidepressant may complicate matters for Pfizer in its defense against over 1,000 Zoloft birth defect lawsuit filings around the country.

In April 2014, a top official of Pfizer’s Worldwide Safety Strategy division, Francesca Kolitsopoulous, proposed label modifications for Zoloft to include warning about potential birth defects following its use during pregnancy. While reviewing research reports, she discovered potential association between the prenatal exposure to the antidepressant and heart, abdominal, intestine, and other deformities in newborns.

Disclosures Dig Dip, Cites 1998 Report

A Zoloft birth defect lawsuit filed in a Philadelphia court a few weeks ago was the first to highlight the revelation to support its claim for $2.4 million in financial damages. The Zoloft lawyer representing the plaintiff has cited “hole in heart, growth retardation, persistent pulmonary hypertension, congenital heart disorders, and omphalocele or protrusion of liver and intestines” among newborn abnormalities linked to the antidepressant in an internal report of Pfizer.

The report dates back to 1998 and was prepared based on review of 50 pregnancy-linked Zoloft birth defect reports by the manufacturer. Pfizer safety monitors reportedly admitted that the antidepressant use by pregnant woman “couldn’t be ruled out as a cause” of congenital defects in babies born to them. They found Zoloft pregnancy side effects as strongly related to newborn abnormalities in at least 16 cases and possibly related in another 25 cases.

Though Pfizer has dismissed the revelation as “cherry-picked data,” the disclosure makes it difficult for the company to reject claims of suppression of information on potential side effect risks.

The incident reminds many Zoloft lawyers about Paxil birth defect lawsuits. GlaxoSmithKline denied allegations of birth defect linked to use of Paxil antidepressant by pregnant mothers until it was investigated by the public authorities following similar disclosures. Glaxo paid $3 billion to the government and $1 billion to 800 plaintiffs to settle claims related to its antidepressant.

Zoloft Birth Defects

Zoloft ranks among the most prescribed antidepressants. However, the drug is named in over 1,000 Zoloft birth defect lawsuit filings that allege the drug caused birth defects in newborns when used by pregnant women. Many research studies have also warned of both fatal and non-fatal injuries in children exposed to the antidepressant at the prenatal stage.

According to researchers from Havard, Zoloft has the potential to result in “two-fold risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” in babies when mothers are treated with the antidepressant during pregnancy.
Chiari type 1 brain malformation are likely to develop in babies due to Zoloft pregnancy side effects, claims Neuropsychopharmacology journal.
Children are likely to born with vertebra and brain abnormalities following Zoloft ingestion by mothers, say reports in Human Reproduction and New England Journal of Medicine.
Autism risk associated with Zoloft birth defects, a fact affirmed by researchersat Johns Hopkins University.
The FDA has warned of persistent pulmonary hypertension in babies linked to antidepressant use by expectant mothers.
Various studies highlight heart defects, developmental delays, and physical deformities.

If you have a claim involving Zoloft birth defect in children, please contact us or call on 1-800-632-1404 for a free evaluation of your potential lawsuit.

November 3, 2015

Heart Defect Label Warning on the Horizon as Zoloft Birth Injury Lawsuit Increase

As Zoloft birth injury lawsuits mount, news reports cite a communication from the FDA to drug manufacturer Pfizer seeking to include the risk of infant heart defects in label warning. Many mothers on behalf of their children have filed a Zoloft birth injury lawsuit claiming serious and fatal heart defects filed across the United States. Plaintiffs claim that they and their innocent children turned victims of the drug side effect in the absence of any pregnancy-linked adverse event warning. Recent court submission by a Zoloft attorney highlights Pfizer was aware of birth injury side effects as early as 1998, but never made it public.

As reported by Bloomberg News, the FDA asked Pfizer in August 2015 to modify safety warnings and add information to Zoloft label warning that “some researchers have discovered risk of congenital cardiac problems in children born to women treated with the antidepressant during pregnancy. The present label talks about “absence of adequate and well-controlled studies involving pregnant women.” The FDA stepped in after a Zoloft birth injury lawsuit quoted some internal memos (between 1998 and 2014) citing how the manufacturer’s staff scientists periodically warned about the potential link between heart defects in newborns and pregnancy side effects of the drug.

The changes to the rules governing pregnancy and lactation labeling information incorporated in 2014 empowers the FDA to request for necessary label changes in the view of perceived health risks for pregnant women. Pfizer sources have confirmed that the FDA request is under consideration. Though the manufacturer still claims that “there is no reliable scientific evidence linking Zoloft and birth defects,” the FDA request underlines what many consumer groups, research reports, and plaintiffs have been highlighting so far.

Internal Memos Cite Heart Defect Birth Injury Risk from Zoloft; Leads to Zoloft Birth Injury Lawsuit

A few weeks ago, a Zoloft attorney representing a $2.4 million claim in a Philadelphia court submitted some portions of a Pfizer internal memo that warns about the possibility of “hole in heart, persistent pulmonary hypertension, and congenital heart disorders” in children born to women ingesting the drug while pregnant. It was taken from a 1998 report prepared by researchers employed by the manufacturer. The report studied 50 Zoloft pregnancy adverse events to conclude that the drug side effects “could not be ruled out” for causing birth injuries, the Zoloft lawyer claims.

Another internal report prepared by Pfizer’s associate director for epidemiology at Worldwide Safety Strategy department and dating back to April 2014 also hinted at Zoloft heart defects in infants. Primarily a review report, it talks about birth deformities impacting heart and other vital organs due to prenatal expose to the antidepressant.

For long, Pfizer is rejecting charges of association between Zoloft antidepressant and birth injury in infants, including heart defects. There are over 1,000 Zoloft lawsuits and more than a dozen research reports claiming various types of congenital birth defects in babies born to mother taking the drug during pregnancy. These documents are support for injured children in a Zoloft birth injury lawsuit.

Zoloft Heart Defects

Research studies and litigant claims associate Zoloft pregnancy side effects to congenital heart defects in new born, including

persistent pulmonary hypertension
non-fatal pulmonary hypertension
plumonary atresia
hypoplastic heart
pulmonary stenosis
heart valve defects
arota compression
opening between right and left atria
fallot tetralogy
arterial defects

Zoloft Birth Injury Lawsuit Updates

The latest FDA suggestion for label changes is viewed as existence of credible link between Zoloft and heart defects in newborns. It could be a potential boost to hundreds of such claims in the court and induce a jury to rule that Pfizer is guilty of hiding safety data to further commercial gains. The manufacturer was successful in defending two Zoloft lawsuits in St. Louis and Philadelphia earlier this year well before the FDA suggestions came into the fore. However, the first federal bellwether trial for a Zoloft birth injury lawsuit is expected in January 2016. I would expect that trial to be influenced by the news.

If you have a claim involving Zoloft birth defect in children, please contact us or call on 1-800-632-1404 for a free evaluation of your potential lawsuit.

November 2, 2015November 2, 2015

Memphis Forceps Delivery Injury Lawsuit

Forceps are often used by doctors to facilitate delivery. Unfortunately, when used improperly, forceps can cause extensive damage to the child, including some that are permanent. If too much pressure is applied or forceps are applied unevenly, it could cause excessive strain on the baby’s head, causing brain swelling, compression of the head, skull fractures, tearing of brain vessels, and intracranial hemorrhages. As a result, the baby may suffer brain damage, brain stroke, cerebral palsy, seizure disorders, and intellectual and developmental delays.

Why are Forceps Used?

The use of forceps may be associated with child birth injury cases. Given the risk of using these metal tongs, the doctor may make an informed decision to use forceps to pull the baby out of the birth canal in the following conditions:

The mother is exhausted
The mother has a sudden hemorrhage
The mother is in second prolonged labor stage
The mother is suffering from high blood pressure, heart problem, or any other medical condition that makes pushing dangerous and difficult
The baby’s heart rate is abnormal
Certain drugs are being used that inhibit mother’s ability to push
There is breech delivery, wherein the baby’s legs/buttocks appear first during birth

The use of forceps has sharply declined; however, there are doctors that continue to use these instruments to facilitate delivery despite the risks associated with them. As a result, their actions may prove catastrophic for a child. The parents can file a forceps delivery injury lawsuit to prove the doctor’s negligence in delivering their baby safely.

Before using forceps, the physician must ensure that

The baby’s head is engaged
Forceps are correctly placed, without exerting too much pressure
The cervix is fully dilated
The fetal presentation and position is known – an ultrasound can come in handy if there is any doubt
The fetal size is accurately estimated with clinical dimensions
The mother’s bladder is empty and her anesthesia is satisfactory

Additionally, it is the duty of the doctor to explain the risks of the procedure to the mother and get her approval.

The Center for Disease Control statistics reveal that six out of 1,000 newborns are injured during birth every year in the United States. Any mistake during childbirth can cause potential harm to the baby and have life-long consequences.

What causes forceps injury during delivery?

Parents of the baby can file a Memphis forceps birth injury lawsuit against the erring doctor for negligence and deviating from the medical standard of care in delivering the baby safely. The doctor may not have undergone specialized training to use forceps during delivery. The medical practitioner may not have been able to keep updated with the developments in obstetric technology.

Our Memphis forceps birth injury lawyers have found that in some cases, the obstetrician was exhausted or inattentive while facilitating delivery of the child. Other common mistakes during the birthing process may include:

Application of excessive force
Incorrect use of forceps
Inability to recognize and address fetal distress
Oxygen deprivation to the fetus
Administration of incorrect drug dosage to the mother
Failure to perform a c-section when required

Please contact us on our website or call 1-800-632-1404 to have a free evaluation of your claim and consultation with our experienced Memphis forceps delivery injury attorney.

November 2, 2015November 2, 2015

A Simple Guide To Filing Effexor Birth Defect Lawsuit

Effexor birth defect lawyer @1-800-632-1404

In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study entitled “Neonatal signs after late in utero exposure to serotonin reuptake inhibitors: Literature review and implications for clinical applications.” This was the first convincing evidence linking congenital birth defects with Effexor, Zoloft, and similar antidepressants and with it began the decade-old debate over the efficacy of antidepressant use during pregnancy.

A 2006 report in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed a six-fold increase with the threat of fatal lung disorder in babies if Effexor is ingested by a pregnant woman. The British Medical Journal linked the drug use during pregnancy to congenital heart defects in 2006 and published more research evidence on Effexor birth defects in newborns in 2013.

What is Effexor?

Effexor is the first serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor or SNRI antidepressant to be introduced. From 1993, when it was approved, to 2011, the drug was one of the most-prescribed antidepressants. The original manufacturer was Wyeth, which has been a part of Pfizer since 2009. Made to regulate mood-controlling neurotransmitters, the drug is suggested to treat anxiety and depressive disorders.

The manufacturer promoted the drug as superior to other antidepressants and claimed a fewer side effects. The product labeling, however, does not carry any warning for pregnancy side effects. Nor did the manufacturer bother to inform about potential Effexor birth defects risks.

What are major Effexor birth defects?

Research reports started appearing in the early 2000s warning of pregnancy-linked Effexor birth defects. By 2012, there were dozens of reports highlighted the association of the drug with many fatal and non-fatal birth deformities. The high possibility of babies born with defects following prenatal exposure to the drug has manifested in coining of the term “Effexor Baby.”

Effexor antidepressant pregnancy side effects are found to be capable of causing congenital birth defects, such as

persistent pulmonary hypertension and hypoxemia attributed to hypoplastic lung problem
long-term heart defects in newborns, including septum wall defect, intra-cardiac blood shunting, heart hole, hypoplastic hole, ventral, atrial, and septal deformities, omphalocele, and heart failure
cranial defects, including underdeveloped brain, malformations in the brain, imperfect skull
physical defects, including vertebra deformities, flawed neural tube, cleft palates and lip, abdominal malformation, anus deformities
developmental delays, slow learning, speech and walking problems, delayed growth
neurological problems in newborns

What to consider while filing an Effexor birth defect lawsuit?

The checklist prior to the filing of an Effexor birth defect lawsuit must take note of the following points.

Statute of limitations: Each state has its own statute of limitation, a legal framework prescribing time limit for filing various kinds of lawsuits. Find out what is the deadline for drug injury lawsuits. In Tennessee, for example, the statute of limitations for a Tennessee Effexor birth defect lawsuit is one year.
Evidence: Identify if the birth defect claim is directly or indirectly related to the use of Effexor antidepressant.
Documents: You will need to review medical and other documents to support your claim, including the pharmacy records to prove you were prescribed the medication during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Consult with Counsel.

What to allege in an Effexor birth defect lawsuit?

Remember that every case is different. An Effexor birth defect lawsuit can seek various types of damages, such as

Recovery of past medical expenses
Financial assistance for future medical costs
Compensation for disability
Compensation for physical suffering, emotional trauma, and loss of wages
Punitive damages

Am I eligible to file an Effexor birth defect lawsuit?

If your child is a victim of Effexor birth defect and you are willing to seek financial damages for product liability, please contact our Effexor birth defect lawyer at 1-800-632-1404 for a free consultation.

October 24, 2015October 24, 2015

Zofran Birth Defect Lawyer Discusses Injuries

As a Zofran Birth Defect Lawyer , we wanted to provide some information about Zoran birth defect injuries. Our case investigation is for women that took Zofran only during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Zofran is commonly prescribed to assist with the treatment of morning sickness symptoms, but Zofran may cause birth defects, including congenital heart defects, even though Zoran has not been approved by the FDA to prevent or treat morning sickness is pregnant women.

In 2012, the manufacturer of Zofran (GlaxoSmithKline) paid a fine of One Billion Dollars as part of a settlement of clams brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which claimed GlaxoSmithKline illegally promised certain forms of Zofran for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women and paid doctors to promote and prescribe Zofran.

Potential Zofran Birth Defect Injuries include:

Congenital Heart Defects
Cleft Lip
Cleft Palate

Please contact our Zofran Birth Defect Lawyer as soon as possible at (800) 632-1404 for a free case evaluation.